Family environment patterns in families with bipolar children

Background: We studied the characteristics of family functioning in bipolar children and healthy comparison children. We hypothesized that the family environment of bipolar children would show greater levels of dysfunction as measured by the Family Environment Scale (FES). Methods: We compared the family functioning of 36 families that included a child with DSM-IV bipolar disorder versus 29 comparison families that included only healthy children. All subjects and their parents were assessed with the K-SADS-PL interview. The parents completed the FES to assess their current family functioning. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare the family environment of families with and without offspring with bipolar disorder. Results: Parents of bipolar children reported lower levels of family cohesion (p<0.001), expressiveness (p=0.005), active-recreational orientation (p<0.001), intellectual-cultural orientation (p=0.04) and higher levels of conflict (p<0.001) compared to parents with no bipolar children. Secondary analyses within the bipolar group revealed lower levels of organization (p=0.03 1) and cohesion (p=0.014) in families where a parent had a history of mood disorders compared to families where parents had no history of mood disorders. Length of illness in the affected child was inversely associated with family cohesion (r=-0.47, p=0.004). Limitations: Due to the case-control design of the study, we cannot comment on the development of these family problems or attribute their cause specifically to child bipolar disorder. Conclusion: Families with bipolar children show dysfunctional patterns related to interpersonal interactions and personal growth. A distressed family environment should be addressed when treating children with bipolar disorder. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Human settlements: Australia state of the environment report, 2001

Australia’s transition to the 21st century has been marked by an extended period of economic prosperity unmatched for several decades, but one in which a series of question marks are being raised in three principal areas: in relation to the environment, the social well-being of the population, and the future path of economic development. The first concern, which is of primary interest in this report, relates to the physical environment of cities and their surrounding regions, and the range of pressures exerted by population and human activity. The report begins by noting the increasing divergence of the prime indicator of national economic performance—gross domestic product (GDP)—from the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). GPI is a new experimental measure of sustainable development that accommodates factors currently unaccounted for in GDP, such as income distribution, value of household work, cost of unemployment, and various other social and environmental costs. The divergence of these two indicators in recent decades suggests that Australia’s growth has been heavily dependent on the draw-down of the nation’s stocks of capital assets (its infrastructure), its human and social capital, and its natural capital (Hamilton 1997).